The
key term that I selected to analyze is collective intelligence. At first, when
the text introduced collective intelligence and brought up the example of ants,
I was so confused. I had such a hardened perspective that ants were the
definition of a hierarchy, and this text was telling me that the queen ant was
in fact, nothing like an actual queen of a society. Also, Johnson talked about
how intelligence is not a characteristic of an individual, but a property of a
group or a system working as a whole. This also was such an irrational concept
to me, as a student who learns and acquires information on her own, how could
intelligence be not something that I could call my own? But with the ant
analogy and also the city analogy I began to understand. I also liked how the
author related collective intelligence to organized complexity with the example
of Manchester, a city that literally had no limits due to its exponentially
developing rate. It helped me understand that I too, am not just an individual
but whether I like it or not, am part of a society that has collective
intelligence and organized complexity. My every action and choice will reflect
on the group and uncoordinated local actions can be the direct cause of larger
patterns.
Collective
intelligence is very similar to crowdsourcing, which is one of the key terms in
the Davidson reading. When the text introduced Steven Johnson, his background,
and his thoughts, it stated that “Johnson identifies himself as a “peer
progressive” who is convinced that “peer networks” represent a new and more
democratic way of organizing our collective creativity” and is that not literally
the definition of crowdsourcing? Although Johnson’s reading focused more on the
patterns and behaviors of organized complexity in a group, and Davidson’s reading
focused more on crowdsourcing and learning, Johnson’s reading mentions
Selfridge’s new paradigm, which relies on a bottom-up intelligence NOT an
intelligence that depends on an expert.
I had the same initial misconception about ants that you did. How else might ants create such an enormously complex ecosystem without a ruler guiding them? However, once one begins to understand organized complexity, the picture becomes clear: As you said, the uncoordinated local actions of the ants can be the direct cause of larger patterns within their ecosystem. I also agree with you that crowdsourcing is very similar, if not exactly the same as, collective intelligence. I share your discomfort with the idea of intelligence not being your own, but I think a good way to reconcile it is to think of each person contributing their own unique experiences and ideas to the collective intelligence.
ReplyDelete@Hilary I think that the collective intelligence aspect of Johnson's writing has a lot to do with our new Lethem reading. You mentioned how the ant colony and Manchester City exhibit "how intelligence is not a characteristic of the individual, but a property of a group or a system working as a whole." Lethem seems to be all about the fact that nothing is totally original, that everything draws influence from somewhere else. Johnson seems to be saying that individual intelligence is relative to its system. Hopefully, you see the connection I'm getting at, and hopefully it makes sense. For Davidson, I think crowdsourcing as you mentioned can share similarities with both collective intelligence and Lethem's philosophy on plagiarism, but the connection may be more of a stretch.
ReplyDelete